[LABCOIN] IPO [BTCT.CO] - Details/FAQ and Discussion (ASIC dev/sales/mining) - page 892.

cix888

newbie

Activity: 54

Merit: 0

Quote from: TheSwede75 on July 31, 2013, 10:15:45 AM

For everyone wearing out the F5 button on their keyboard: We will NOT release the IPO without a prior notice here (and in top-post) explaining our solution/reasoning etc. There is no need to stay updated on a minute-by-minute basis. we are currently still considering options for a fair resolution.

Ok I'm going for a cigarette then but in doubt just whippet the book Wink

yxxyun

member

Activity: 99

Merit: 10

yes ,i'm the first bid at 0.001, after a few hour i had to rise my bid price because i'm afraid of be kick out the sequence...

Ytterbium

full member

Activity: 238

Merit: 100

Quote from: Bitcycle on July 31, 2013, 10:09:37 AM

It wasn't just random people saying bids would be filled from the highest down, it was also Burnside himself.

A fair way to do it would be to look at canceled orders as well - if someone canceled an order for X shares, then ordered X shares after 2013-07-31 15:34:00, it should still count as their 'original' order size.

Amazingly the timestamp on my order is 15:33:43. literally just 17 seconds earlier!.

I still have another, smaller order from last night at 7:45:15, and that was only a little bit before my larger initial order was placed.

damiano

legendary

Activity: 1246

Merit: 1000

103 days, 21 hours and 10 minutes.

just limit every order to 5k to 10k problem solved

everyone gets a piece of the pie

TheSwede75

full member

Activity: 224

Merit: 100

For everyone wearing out the F5 button on their keyboard: We will NOT release the IPO without a prior notice here (and in top-post) explaining our solution/reasoning etc. There is no need to stay updated on a minute-by-minute basis. we are currently still considering options for a fair resolution.

limbaugh

legendary

Activity: 1311

Merit: 1000

Quote from: Bitcycle on July 31, 2013, 10:13:55 AM

Quote from: burnside on July 31, 2013, 02:45:58 AM

Quote from: Ytterbium on July 31, 2013, 02:29:03 AM

Quote from: dexX7 on July 31, 2013, 02:23:06 AM

I think I need to address this again, because of my vague words. :/

It's:

1. Top-Down
2. First-In

That's how it would work if the IPO was executed like any other sell order - It's unclear if there are special rules in place for IPOs or not, and different people are posting conflicting information.

I mean, what happens if you have an early order at 0.001, and enough bids come out at or above 0.001001 to buy up all the shares? In that case would it be better to cancel your order and put in a new one at a higher price, or keep your bid in order to stay at the top of the queue?

There is nothing special about the initial ask an issuer makes in their IPO. Thus the bids will get filled auction style, first by price, then at each price by whomever got their order in soonest.

I understand there are questions around the fairness of this, but I don't have time to rewrite anything special.

It seems to me that this method of filling the ask is in the best interest of the company filling the IPO anyway?

Cheers.

Quoting for reference

Yep, throw the timestamps out...

Bitcycle

sr. member

Activity: 420

Merit: 250

Quote from: burnside on July 31, 2013, 02:45:58 AM

Quote from: Ytterbium on July 31, 2013, 02:29:03 AM

Quote from: dexX7 on July 31, 2013, 02:23:06 AM

I think I need to address this again, because of my vague words. :/

It's:

1. Top-Down
2. First-In

That's how it would work if the IPO was executed like any other sell order - It's unclear if there are special rules in place for IPOs or not, and different people are posting conflicting information.

I mean, what happens if you have an early order at 0.001, and enough bids come out at or above 0.001001 to buy up all the shares? In that case would it be better to cancel your order and put in a new one at a higher price, or keep your bid in order to stay at the top of the queue?

There is nothing special about the initial ask an issuer makes in their IPO. Thus the bids will get filled auction style, first by price, then at each price by whomever got their order in soonest.

I understand there are questions around the fairness of this, but I don't have time to rewrite anything special.

It seems to me that this method of filling the ask is in the best interest of the company filling the IPO anyway?

Cheers.

Quoting for reference

hammurabi

full member

Activity: 223

Merit: 100

I think TheSwede75 is trying to do his best, but the whole thing is turning into a kind of a show now.

First there was a statement that before the trading there will be up to 16-24h time to make a bid. It was changed.
Then higher bid wins is going to change to yet unknown formula.
Then You state that You don't want to take any more money per share than 0.001 but taking circumstances You will do so.

So i think IPO should be delayed and solution should be worked out in a calm and steady pace instead of this rush.

grimholt

member

Activity: 104

Merit: 10

Quote from: TheSwede75 on July 31, 2013, 10:04:01 AM

Quote from: grimholt on July 31, 2013, 09:57:42 AM

Quote from: cix888 on July 31, 2013, 09:47:48 AM

Quote from: VinceSamios on July 31, 2013, 09:45:33 AM

130nm .... lol, that's soooo 11 years ago....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/130_nanometer

Why would people invest in this crap?

hmm maybe because it cheap... easy to deliver and actually pretty reliable...

but wtf do I know

Vbs and myself has already asked TheSwede75 to address this several times, without getting any response (see my latest post).

I have reached out to our development team and they will offer an in depth technical explanation behind Labcoins reasoning behind density choice.

What I can tell you is that the choice of developing the first generation ASIC using 'old technology' is the far superior price point and manufacturing availability/time to market this provides. Labcoin is also as stated already far into the development process for a 65 nm chip for the next generation of the ASIC.

Looking forward to the in-depth explanation. Could you also address the questions regarding the time frame?

Quote from: grimholt on July 31, 2013, 09:16:12 AM

TIME FRAME:

Is your 130nm chip set to being finished in Q4 2013? If so, do you plan on rolling out mining hardware from other manufacturers in the mean time (as ACTM is doing)?

VinceSamios

sr. member

Activity: 448

Merit: 250

Quote from: pheaonix on July 31, 2013, 10:10:39 AM

Quote from: VinceSamios on July 31, 2013, 10:08:52 AM

1. 11 year old technology
2. 130nm chips will not mine at a profit within 5-8 months
3. 130nm chips coming online at the same time as 28nm chips from two other suppliers
4. 65nm chips due to be developed in 2014.... when 28nm chips are already on the market, as well as bulk 65nm chips
5. Not hashing until they can get their own hardware online (it took BFL 12+ months)
6. F*d up the IPO and pissed off potential investors before they even started....

remind me, why are people investing in this ipo?

I think BTC IPO's are a bubble... a massive massive bubble. The idea that people are prepared to buy this shit illustrates that fact completely.

someone wants cheap shares Cheesy

Hand on heart - this one is not for me. For the reasons above.

pheaonix

sr. member

Activity: 392

Merit: 250

http://casinobitco.in/ A+ customer support

Quote from: VinceSamios on July 31, 2013, 10:08:52 AM

1. 11 year old technology
2. 130nm chips will not mine at a profit within 5-8 months
3. 130nm chips coming online at the same time as 28nm chips from two other suppliers
4. 65nm chips due to be developed in 2014.... when 28nm chips are already on the market, as well as bulk 65nm chips
5. Not hashing until they can get their own hardware online (it took BFL 12+ months)
6. F*d up the IPO and pissed off potential investors before they even started....

remind me, why are people investing in this ipo?

I think BTC IPO's are a bubble... a massive massive bubble. The idea that people are prepared to buy this shit illustrates that fact completely.

someone wants cheap shares Cheesy

Bitcycle

sr. member

Activity: 420

Merit: 250

Quote from: Ytterbium on July 31, 2013, 10:07:24 AM

Quote from: TheSwede75 on July 31, 2013, 09:50:34 AM

PLEASE do NOT place any orders from this time until we have a solution proposed. IF we decide to fill orders in the books as a % of shares booked at IPO price (Or any other of the possible solutions proposed in this thread) we will use server time-stamps from order placement anyway and placing huge orders for purchases in any attempt to 'game' the system will only lead to added confusion, not more shares.

Okay, here's the problem: I had an order in last night at 0.001. But reading the thread this morning people were saying it was just going to be filled from highest price down, so I canceled my order and placed another one at a slightly higher price, enough that I would still get shares if they were sold 'normally'.

Is there going to be a hard cutoff for new shares at a server time of exactly 2013-07-31 15:34:00?. If so, then my order will be fine, I guess.

Are you going to take into consideration the time people initially bid, if they canceled their orders and raised the price so they could still get shares given all the conflicting information?

It wasn't just random people saying bids would be filled from the highest down, it was also Burnside himself.

VinceSamios

sr. member

Activity: 448

Merit: 250

1. 11 year old technology
2. 130nm chips will not mine at a profit within 5-8 months
3. 130nm chips coming online at the same time as 28nm chips from two other suppliers
4. 65nm chips due to be developed in 2014.... when 28nm chips are already on the market, as well as bulk 65nm chips
5. Not hashing until they can get their own hardware online (it took BFL 12+ months)
6. F*d up the IPO and pissed off potential investors before they even started....

remind me, why are people investing in this ipo?

I think BTC IPO's are a bubble... a massive massive bubble. The idea that people are prepared to buy this shit illustrates that fact completely.

E.Sam

sr. member

Activity: 393

Merit: 250

Quote from: Ytterbium on July 31, 2013, 10:07:24 AM

Quote from: TheSwede75 on July 31, 2013, 09:50:34 AM

PLEASE do NOT place any orders from this time until we have a solution proposed. IF we decide to fill orders in the books as a % of shares booked at IPO price (Or any other of the possible solutions proposed in this thread) we will use server time-stamps from order placement anyway and placing huge orders for purchases in any attempt to 'game' the system will only lead to added confusion, not more shares.

Okay, here's the problem: I had an order in last night at 0.001. But reading the thread this morning people were saying it was just going to be filled from highest price down, so I canceled my order and placed another one at a slightly higher price, enough that I would still get shares if they were sold 'normally'.

Is there going to be a hard cutoff for new shares at a server time of exactly 2013-07-31 15:34:00?. If so, then my order will be fine, I guess.

Are you going to take into consideration the time people initially bid, if they canceled their orders and raised the price so they could still get shares given all the conflicting information?

+1

Ytterbium

full member

Activity: 238

Merit: 100

Quote from: TheSwede75 on July 31, 2013, 09:50:34 AM

PLEASE do NOT place any orders from this time until we have a solution proposed. IF we decide to fill orders in the books as a % of shares booked at IPO price (Or any other of the possible solutions proposed in this thread) we will use server time-stamps from order placement anyway and placing huge orders for purchases in any attempt to 'game' the system will only lead to added confusion, not more shares.

Okay, here's the problem: I had an order in last night at 0.001. But reading the thread this morning people were saying it was just going to be filled from highest price down, so I canceled my order and placed another one at a slightly higher price, enough that I would still get shares if they were sold 'normally'.

Is there going to be a hard cutoff for new orders at a server time of exactly 2013-07-31 15:34:00?. If so, then my order will be fine, I guess.

Are you going to take into consideration the time people initially bid, if they canceled their orders and raised the price so they could still get shares given all the conflicting information?

limbaugh

legendary

Activity: 1311

Merit: 1000

Quote from: E.Sam on July 31, 2013, 10:04:41 AM

The problem is that others have already moved their bids following Burnside earlier statement.

It has to be reset due to Burnsides statement.

TheSwede75

full member

Activity: 224

Merit: 100

Quote from: E.Sam on July 31, 2013, 10:04:41 AM

Quote from: dhenson on July 31, 2013, 10:02:35 AM

Quote from: TheSwede75 on July 31, 2013, 09:50:34 AM

NEW UPDATE:

We are working with Ethan Burnside of BTCT.CO on a solution to the overwhelming demand. IF we can find a solution that does not involve resetting the order book and opening the sale at previously announced time (8 PM CENTRAL TIME - US) we will communicate this here in advance (at least a few hours). If the solution is found to be 'good' by a majority of investors we may release share-sale earlier then previously communicated.

The reason for this would be (among many):
- Avoid possible technical malfunction of BTCT.CO
- Release the shares at IPO price and allow fair distribution among investors unable to place their orders at exactly 8 pm Central
- Avoid a situation where a large investor buys a majority of available shares at EXACTLY 8 pm Central

Once again, we are sorry for the situation at hand but had very little options in how to handle the sale as we had no control over the approval process.

PLEASE do NOT place any orders from this time until we have a solution proposed. IF we decide to fill orders in the books as a % of shares booked at IPO price (Or any other of the possible solutions proposed in this thread) we will use server time-stamps from order placement anyway and placing huge orders for purchases in any attempt to 'game' the system will only lead to added confusion, not more shares.

Quoting for posterity. I am not moving my bids as instructed. Otherwise I would have bid higher thus resetting my time stamp.

The problem is that others have already moved their bids following Burnside earlier statement.

I am leaning any decision making on the expertise of Ethan Burnside.

TheSwede75

full member

Activity: 224

Merit: 100

Quote from: dhenson on July 31, 2013, 10:02:35 AM

Quote from: TheSwede75 on July 31, 2013, 09:50:34 AM

NEW UPDATE:

We are working with Ethan Burnside of BTCT.CO on a solution to the overwhelming demand. IF we can find a solution that does not involve resetting the order book and opening the sale at previously announced time (8 PM CENTRAL TIME - US) we will communicate this here in advance (at least a few hours). If the solution is found to be 'good' by a majority of investors we may release share-sale earlier then previously communicated.

The reason for this would be (among many):
- Avoid possible technical malfunction of BTCT.CO
- Release the shares at IPO price and allow fair distribution among investors unable to place their orders at exactly 8 pm Central
- Avoid a situation where a large investor buys a majority of available shares at EXACTLY 8 pm Central

Once again, we are sorry for the situation at hand but had very little options in how to handle the sale as we had no control over the approval process.

PLEASE do NOT place any orders from this time until we have a solution proposed. IF we decide to fill orders in the books as a % of shares booked at IPO price (Or any other of the possible solutions proposed in this thread) we will use server time-stamps from order placement anyway and placing huge orders for purchases in any attempt to 'game' the system will only lead to added confusion, not more shares.

Quoting for posterity. I am not moving my bids as instructed. Otherwise I would have bid higher thus resetting my time stamp.

Thank you. I am sorry if anyone is confused or disappointed with our process but I am simply not comfortable with taking any action before I receive information and advice from Ethan Burnside. This is after all a considerable amount of Bitcoin we are talking about and I am not willing to risk anyone's coin by making a possibly stupid/careless decision.

E.Sam

sr. member

Activity: 393

Merit: 250

Quote from: dhenson on July 31, 2013, 10:02:35 AM

Quote from: TheSwede75 on July 31, 2013, 09:50:34 AM

NEW UPDATE:

We are working with Ethan Burnside of BTCT.CO on a solution to the overwhelming demand. IF we can find a solution that does not involve resetting the order book and opening the sale at previously announced time (8 PM CENTRAL TIME - US) we will communicate this here in advance (at least a few hours). If the solution is found to be 'good' by a majority of investors we may release share-sale earlier then previously communicated.

The reason for this would be (among many):
- Avoid possible technical malfunction of BTCT.CO
- Release the shares at IPO price and allow fair distribution among investors unable to place their orders at exactly 8 pm Central
- Avoid a situation where a large investor buys a majority of available shares at EXACTLY 8 pm Central

Once again, we are sorry for the situation at hand but had very little options in how to handle the sale as we had no control over the approval process.

PLEASE do NOT place any orders from this time until we have a solution proposed. IF we decide to fill orders in the books as a % of shares booked at IPO price (Or any other of the possible solutions proposed in this thread) we will use server time-stamps from order placement anyway and placing huge orders for purchases in any attempt to 'game' the system will only lead to added confusion, not more shares.

Quoting for posterity. I am not moving my bids as instructed. Otherwise I would have bid higher thus resetting my time stamp.

The problem is that others have already moved their bids following Burnside earlier statement.

TheSwede75

full member

Activity: 224

Merit: 100

Quote from: grimholt on July 31, 2013, 09:57:42 AM

Quote from: cix888 on July 31, 2013, 09:47:48 AM

Quote from: VinceSamios on July 31, 2013, 09:45:33 AM

130nm .... lol, that's soooo 11 years ago....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/130_nanometer

Why would people invest in this crap?

hmm maybe because it cheap... easy to deliver and actually pretty reliable...

but wtf do I know

Vbs and myself has already asked TheSwede75 to address this several times, without getting any response (see my latest post).

I have reached out to our development team and they will offer an in depth technical explanation behind Labcoins reasoning behind density choice.

What I can tell you is that the choice of developing the first generation ASIC using 'old technology' is the far superior price point and manufacturing availability/time to market this provides. Labcoin is also as stated already far into the development process for a 65 nm chip for the next generation of the ASIC.

Topic: [LABCOIN] IPO [BTCT.CO] - Details/FAQ and Discussion (ASIC dev/sales/mining) - page 892. (Read 1079974 times)